Using Sierra-1s w/ "Small" Subwoofer

[Mag_Neato]

I am interested in Trinnov. In fact, Sherwood/Newcastle is a client of my neighbor (marketing). I don't see him often, but I see his wife all the time walking their dog....trying to figure out a way of "asking" about it.

Curtis, check out this announcement from Outlaw.

http://ubb.outlawaudio.com/ubb/ultim.../t/000049.html

They developed their soon to be released pre/pro with Sherwood. It will include Trinnov, however, Sherwood has stated they will NOT make a processor-only version of their new receiver that has it.

[curtis]

Curtis, check out this announcement from Outlaw.

http://ubb.outlawaudio.com/ubb/ultim.../t/000049.html

They developed their soon to be released pre/pro with Sherwood. It will include Trinnov, however, Sherwood has stated they will NOT make a processor-only version of their new receiver that has it.

Yes...I know about this. Quit teasing me!

If I get a receiver instead of a pre/pro to test out....I won't be crying. hehe

[azanon]

Audyssey, for all intents, basically looks at FR for its decision making process(decay as well). It does not take into account transient response or distortion. You could plug in a subwoofer that has high distortion and terrible transient response, but capable of 150hz, and a speaker that has low distortion down to 80hz and good transient response, and Audyssey will not take that into account and choose a higher crossover...allowing more information from the subwoofer with more distortion and less accurate transient response.

Even if all of this is true, then that's still what it'd take to get 1. EQ 2. specfically optimized for your room environment. Of course you provided an extreme example. I'll admit right now, I'd be aweful disappointed if my particular sub is best characterized by "high distortion and terrible transient response" considering I bought it from SVS and paid $700 for it.

I only follow this hobby from a cursory perspective, but if all one does it take their SPL meter and balance their speakers and nothing else, then one's setup is likely going to be lacking quite a bit no matter how good the "transient response", and "low distortion" of your speakers.

[azanon]

To be clear, I have no issue with the results that using Audyssey provides. I have heard systems with it a few different times. Sometimes I like it, sometimes I don't. I am happy it worked for you.

What I do have issue with is your stance that "because Audyssey says this it must be true".

The one thing that I wish Audyssey could do (when implemented in receivers and pre/pros) is give the user the ability to choose what he/she wants EQ'd...like only the subwoofer. SVS's new EQ device will address this and is for subs only, and I have no doubts it will be excellent...but it is also $750.

If Audyssey improves such that my best choice is a "real" sub, then I'll be the first to jump on that. I'll admit Rythmik's definitely sound like the real deal from a "subwoofer" perspective, but with their design being dedicated to very low bass, it just seems like it might present some problems where Audyssey is concerned.

Look, I have to go with what's available now. I don't have K's of dollars to pay for professional room treatment and EQ'ing. We have at least one real high end audio shops here that will do that sort of thing, but I just don't have that kind of money. I do have a lot of good, soft, uneven surfaces in my room including a bookshelf. But I like the fact that I can have relatively low cost EQ'ing without breaking the bank.

My SVS comes with a lot of (complicated) EQ'ing ability using their PEQ. Some of that completely lost me though when I was reading through it. I would at least try doing it that way if I could understand it! Until then, I just turn all of that off and let Audyssey do the thinking for me!

In short, I will concede Audyssey isn't perfect. But its better than nothing (no EQ), ......... isn't it?

[azanon]

Azanon,

It is obvious that you have excellent debating skills, and have researched this subject ad-nauseam. Kudos to your ability to translate thought to the written word effectively.

I appreciate the compliment, but I fail to see the relevance. If you guys convince me through rational argument that there's another sub within a reasonable price range that's better for me, I can assure you my current sub will be on ebay within a week.

Naturally, the "I'm against" Ascend theory definitely wouldn't apply to me. I'd have to sell all of my main speakers for that idea to carry any weight. By virtue of what I own and use, I'm neither a homer nor in opposition to Ascend - Ascend including all of the products that they sell/endorse.

As you are completely convinced of your point of view, there will be no way to sway your opinions.

Now see, I don't get this statement at all. You just complimented me on my debating skills, then turned right around and indirectly suggested that I'm not being open minded. There's a difference between presenting a strong argument that isn't leaving a lot of room for rebuttal, and not being open minded. I'm plenty open minded and crazy eager to hear someone explain to me why I'm worrying about nothing regarding Audyssey.

Other than sitting you down at a demonstration utilizing all of the possible setup variations being discussed here, and having any one of those configurations other than the one you subscribe to clearly emerge victorious, I don't see it happening. As a master-debater you surely realize this, no?

All I'm asking is for someone to explain to me in writing how I will not be exposing the 100-200hz range for a lot of distortion if I swapped to a Rythmik (or some other sub capable of really low frequencies, but not so good 100hz+ performance) while still using Audyssey as it was designed. Until I get rid of my HTM-200se', I'm going to score 100 or 120hz on Audyssey every single time that I do it.

So, we can all agree to disagree.

That might be how it ends up. But if no one can give me an alternative for still having EQ balancing while ensuring no distortion in the 100-200hz range, then I'm going to feel pretty good about the side of the debate that I'm going to fall on.

I'm far less concerned about "winning the debate" as I am knowing I have the best sub for me (within reasonable price) sitting in my living room.

BTW, have you done any research on the emerging Trinnov EQ technology?

No. Heck, overall, I'll concede probably most of you know more about audiology than I do. I'm one of those lazy folks who want to know just enough to have outstanding sound in my house, and not that much more. "What's the best sub for me", can't be THAT complicated a question, ... can it?

I'll look into that though, ok?

[azanon]

The Audyssey method is pretty good. But it is not the best solution for everyone. For example, if I had a pair of Sierras and say an SVS PB-10 subwoofer or a cheap Energy subwoofer (yes they exist), then I would certainly run my system with a 60hz crossover. The bass articulation of the Sierras is far superior to these relatively inexpensive subwoofers.

Hey I agree with that, Mike, but I definitely don't believe in not having balanced equipment, from a performance perspective.

I'd like to believe my sub is balanced in terms of quality to my HTM-200se/340SE. Obviously, this gets into opinion, but that's my opinion. But, sure, I'd agree a Sierra is likely in another quality class as compared to SVS's most entry-level sub (the PB-10).

[curtis]

I get it now...this is about you and your sub, not actually about Audyssey.

You are trying to justify to yourself that your sub is the best for you. If you like how it sounds, then don't worry about it. If you are curious about a different solution, then nothing beats actually trying it.

[davef]

The only small detail I am willing to add to this discussion...

Per what I just said in my previous post and according to Brian, and based on what Dave said above, you're right. You don't want to cross THAT sub higher than 80hz. We're not using the same sub. My sub tops out at 150hz, at -3db.

Az, I have some news for you that you might not like... Your subwoofer's woofer is precisely one of those woofers I mentioned --- high mass, low efficiency and high inductance. In fact, aside from some modifications (patented servo sensing coil), it is the same woofer that was used in Brian's original designs (when TC Sounds was producing them for both SVS and Rythmik).

Brian is far more critical and honest regarding performance (often too critical IMHO) than any subwoofer manufacturer I have ever known, thus resulting in his recommendation of a crossover point no higher than 80Hz (and I commend him on the honesty).

His subwoofers also measure closest to publicized specifications compared to any other subs I have ever measured.

Unless SVS has changed their sub's EQ, your sub is -3dB at 100Hz (low pass filter disabled). This is what I measured, which also closely matches some 3rd party published measurements.

However, this "spec" is simply frequency response and your argument misses my original point entirely. If your subwoofer is being asked to reproduce a 20Hz signal while at the same time being asked to reproduce a 60Hz signal -- due to the high inertia generated by the high mass woofer, the transient accuracy of the 60Hz tone is going to be greatly compromised, if reproduced at all. I am not singling out the SB-12. It is a great sub for its size but the small volume cabinet comes with a price tag -- and that is in order to reproduce deep bass in such a small cabinet, a high mass woofer MUST be used (better this option than large amounts of EQ). This type of transient accuracy can not be compensated for by Audyssey and it can not be measured by frequency response.

In my professional opinion and experience, transient accuracy/impulse response is actually more critical when determining overall subwoofer performance. An opinion shared by the late great John Dunlavy, although I believe on- and off-axis freq response in a loudspeaker to be of equal importance, since room acoustics are less influential when compared to a subwoofer.

Audyssey has no way to determine these critical factors. I believe it determines an appropriate crossover point based on frequency response - which is why even with the same speakers, users will often get dramatically different results depending on the room they are in.

My point is that there is much more to this than frequency response, impulse response is of equal -if not more- importance. And not just simple one note transient response but two tone transient response. For example, run a steady state 20Hz sine wave into the sub, keep that going and then hit the sub with a brief 55Hz signal. Compare the transient response (attack and decay) of that 55Hz signal with and without the additional carrier signal (the 20Hz steady state tone) Results might be surprising

I prefer a 60Hz crossover with the Sierra-1 because the woofer in this speaker has very low inductance, lower mass and much less generated inertia than a high mass 12" woofer. Meaning that it will be able to more accurately reproduce a 100Hz signal while also reproducing a 50Hz signal, than your subwoofer can reproduce a 50Hz signal while also reproducing a 20Hz signal. And while you might not publicly admit this -- I do know that you fully understand this concept

It is for this reason that I strongly recommend the Rythmik subwoofers. Transient accuracy is dramatically improved because of the real-time motional feedback provided by servo.

All that being said, if maximum output of the speaker and sub is desired, a higher crossover point would be recommended. And if simply the "flattest" in-room frequency response is desired, with little or no regard to preserving accurate transients -- allowing Audyssey to do its thing (unless it sets your mains to large) might be the way to go.

Hope this is useful!

[Sam1000]

Great post Dave! Allows me to pull the trigger for the sub when things fall in place. $$ :-)

Az, I like your attitude about not taking anything for granted and question it till it satisfies you. We get great information as a result.

This hobby is hard especially when you spend a good amount of $$ and couple months later, someone introduces a new product that is 10%-30% better for 10-20% more money. 30 day money back guarantee comes in handy in these cases so that you can decide yourself whether it's really worth making that upgrade. (Although the shipping cost in case of subs negates that advantage).

I'll be looking for a local audition from a fellow enthusiast in my area for this sub. Any volunteers in SF bay area??

[azanon]

Brian is far more critical and honest regarding performance (often too critical IMHO) than any subwoofer manufacturer I have ever known, thus resulting in his recommendation of a crossover point no higher than 80Hz (and I commend him on the honesty).

So where are the graphs for the subs on your website, since he's so honest? Given that we both know that there are none listed, I admit the question is rhetorical. I'd be interested in comparing them to SVS graphs (which are posted, btw).

Is Brian taking the bos* approach - meaning just trust him that they are better and we don't need any graphs?

I think its safe to say we define honesty in this regard differently.

His subwoofers also measure closest to publicized specifications compared to any other subs I have ever measured.

Unless SVS has changed their sub's EQ, your sub is -3dB at 100Hz (low pass filter disabled). This is what I measured, which also closely matches some 3rd party published measurements.

I'd expect your reading to be at best the same as SVS, and at worst, lower.

We also know what you/Brian claim for the Rythmik (14-100, -2db). Now all that's left is for one of your competitors to measure your sub and give us the predictable equal or lower results too.

However, this "spec" is simply frequency response and your argument misses my original point entirely. If your subwoofer is being asked to reproduce a 20Hz signal while at the same time being asked to reproduce a 60Hz signal -- due to the high inertia generated by the high mass woofer, the transient accuracy of the 60Hz tone is going to be greatly compromised, if reproduced at all. I am not singling out the SB-12. It is a great sub for its size but the small volume cabinet comes with a price tag -- and that is in order to reproduce deep bass in such a small cabinet, a high mass woofer MUST be used (better this option than large amounts of EQ). This type of transient accuracy can not be compensated for by Audyssey and it can not be measured by frequency response.

Look, i never said that smaller is actually better overall for a sub. I know for a fact compromises are made in performance for my sub's size, and that all things being equal, larger size will result in better sub performance. SVS is already on record saying this directly in the writeup of the SB12-plus.

In my professional opinion and experience, transient accuracy/impulse response is actually more critical when determining overall subwoofer performance. An opinion shared by the late great John Dunlavy, although I believe on- and off-axis freq response in a loudspeaker to be of equal importance, since room acoustics are less influential when compared to a subwoofer.

Again, I presume it has great "transient accuracy/impulse response" in the frequency range its designed for. How great will its transient accuracy/impulse be at 200hz for the sound frequencies that are (not may) going to spill-over from my 100hz cross?

Here's what's fixed and variable for me. What's fixed is that I will be using Audyssey. What's variable is which sub will best work with Audyssey enabled. If I'm going to "score" 100 or 120 on an audyssey run, would that sub still be a Rythmik?

You can recommend 60hz all day long. But you really can't "use" 60hz with Audyssey unless that's what you score (or lower) - unless you simply want to do it wrong and lose EQ.

Audyssey has no way to determine these critical factors. I believe it determines an appropriate crossover point based on frequency response - which is why even with the same speakers, users will often get dramatically different results depending on the room they are in.

My point is that there is much more to this than frequency response, impulse response is of equal -if not more- importance. And not just simple one note transient response but two tone transient response. For example, run a steady state 20Hz sine wave into the sub, keep that going and then hit the sub with a brief 55Hz signal. Compare the transient response (attack and decay) of that 55Hz signal with and without the additional carrier signal (the 20Hz steady state tone) Results might be surprising

If Audyssey needs to improve on how its determining that, then I'm not the one to mention it too. My limitation is that I have to go with what it finds to be able to use their EQ properly.

I prefer a 60Hz crossover with the Sierra-1 because the woofer in this speaker has very low inductance, lower mass and much less generated inertia than a high mass 12" woofer. Meaning that it will be able to more accurately reproduce a 100Hz signal while also reproducing a 50Hz signal, than your subwoofer can reproduce a 50Hz signal while also reproducing a 20Hz signal. And while you might not publicly admit this -- I do know that you fully understand this concept

I understand that explanation at least in theory, but its simply not a concern for an Audyssey user because Audyssey fully makes that decision for you. Ultimately, uou run Audyssey, and go with the crossover it finds, OR you shouldn't use Audyssey at all. The third, and worst choice, is to run Audyssey, lower the crossover afterwards, and then use an Audyssey mode anyway effectively using a partial EQ.

All that being said, if maximum output of the speaker and sub is desired, a higher crossover point would be recommended. And if simply the "flattest" in-room frequency response is desired, with little or no regard to preserving accurate transients -- allowing Audyssey to do its thing (unless it sets your mains to large) might be the way to go.

Now see, this is where you're essentially doing what Curtis was accusing me of doing - not fully understanding the other side. Audyssey 101 - anyone who's followed what audyssey does and does not - knows that audyssey does not make the choice of large vs. small on mains - the receiver does. This is addressed in Audyssey's FAQ. I also mentioned it earlier in this thread, but I presume you skipped over that.

If your receiver choose "large" when you run the Audyssey scheme, Audyssey recommends changing it to small afterwards unless your speaker's roll-off point is at least below 40hz. This is a paraphrase of the Audyssey FAQ.

All due respect, but if this is news to you about Audyssey, it is telling me you haven't read enough about what they're doing... or not doing..... to be in a position to make a fair judgment on that technology. BTW - Several MAJOR receiver brands and professional (expensive) models are including Audyssey now, so I'd at least rethink taking an approach which essentially slanders the usefulness of this technology.